Is Wikileaks For Real

Oh come on now. Do you really believe that some person was able to download a quarter of a million of very sensitive American diplomatic documents and then have someone else post them on the Internet? Just like that!

Or alternatively, is this a spy – counterspy tactic developed by some of the most secretive US governmental groups to get out the US message to those groups whom they oppose to scare them all!

Just like the Federal Reserve Chair when he "jaws down" the US investment system when he wants something done quickly but cannot do it himself in time. Look at how the stock market reacts to his every word.

This stuff all has to be true doesn’t it? After all Julian Assange is a very bad man who is risking world chaos from his disclosures, arrested in England because of a Swedish warrant for questioning on rape charges.

Here is a comment I saw by Sharmine Narwani, a Senior Associate, St. Antony’s College, Oxford University on The Huffington Post that questions this:

“The New York Times’ lengthy explanation of why it decided to publish the WikiLeaks Cables leaves out one important consideration. What on earth would the State Department have done if a major US paper had not "interpreted" the information dump for the American masses?

Someone had to take on the "national responsibility" of "crafting" the leaks into supporting US policy initiatives, after all.”

Just think about it. This huge scare story about all of the sites around the world that are so important to the Americans. The Globe and Mail did an article about it and was so shocked by the release “WikiLeaks’s mad attack on Canada.” They were so disgusted that the sites were released that the author stated:

“While, there has been considerable sympathy to date for WikiLeaks and for Mr. Assange, I suspect that some of this might erode once Canadians get a look at this latest cable, which is now widely available, and which sets out the juiciest targets in Canada for those looking to do harm to the United States.”

Just to point out how terrible this was, what does the Globe do but publish the names of all of those critical infrastructure sites in Canada to make it easy for terrorists to gain that information!

You explain that. I cannot.

We know that one of the sites is “Northern border crossing Ambassador Bridge POE.” How do we know this? The Government of Canada has been saying this for ages! Brent Jang in the Globe and Mail back in May wrote this:

“In the battle of the bridge, federal Transport Minister John Baird is playing the terrorism card.

Plans by Michigan billionaire Manuel (Matty) Moroun to build a new span next to his Ambassador Bridge would make the continent’s busiest commercial crossing a juicy target for terrorists who could block billions of dollars in Canada-U.S. trade for months, Mr. Baird says.”

DUH…I do not remember anyone in the mainstream media charging that terrorists might be aided and abetted by the former Transport Minister with this remark.

Clearly, the purpose of this release of information is to hide the really secretive sites that the Americans are concerned about and to focus the terrorists on sites that are already being protected.

Do you think I’m kidding? Why is it that the Ambassador Bridge is always talked about but not the Detroit/Windsor Tunnel which was described in only ONE story that I can recall as a unique security risk? Why is it that its condition and state of repair after 80 years have never been disclosed?

What Tunnel in our area was disclosed: "Michigan Central Rail Crossing"

“it was an Arab leader, the king of Bahrain, who provides the base for the American Fifth Fleet, telling the Americans that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped,” according to another cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” he said.

His plea was shared by many of America’s Arab allies, including the powerful King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who according to another cable repeatedly implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time." (David E. Sanger, James Glanz and Jo Becker, New York Times)

It is not just the Americans and Israel opposed to Iran but many of their Arab state neighbours!

Take a look at the Guardian’s Wikileaks database documents that they published:

–“Israel grateful for US support”–“China ‘would accept’ Korean reunification”–“Saudi king urges US strike on Iran”–“China’s ‘dislike’ of North Korean regime”–“China and US compare notes on how to handle Iran”–“Pakistan army chief ‘desperate’ for US military support”

And so on. Hardly the stuff to embarrass Americans when it supports the US position.

As for Canada, the leaked documents have been minimal. If one goes to the Wikileaks website, only 5 documents have been leaked from the American Embassy in Ottawa. I have written already about one of them.

Isn’t it interesting that so few documents have been published and that two of them set out the US position under Presidents Bush and Obama to Canada. What a remarkable coincidence that the documents were published a few weeks before Secretary of State Clinton was to come to Ottawa.

The clear message to the Canadian Government. Nothing of significance is going to be discussed when the Secretary arrives there. She does not have to say it. Wikileaks did!

Now that you understand how the game is played, enjoy it. Read the documents as they are released and try and figure out what the real purpose of it is. There are apparently several thousand documents relating to Canada. They should be a hoot especially if they talk about the border file.

Of course the Wikileaks documents controversy may have taken on a life of its own that the US bureaucrats may not have considered if there really is a plot as I have described. Here is part of one interesting commentary from the Guardian:

"’Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks revelations.

The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the real thing.

And as the backlash unfolds – first with deniable attacks on internet service providers hosting WikiLeaks, later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal suddenly "discovering" that their terms and conditions preclude them from offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about WikiLeaks on Facebook – the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy and about the future of the net.

There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down." (John Naughton Guardian.co.uk, 6 December 2010)

You ought to read the rest of his article as well to gain some other valuable insights about the leaks

About the Author

Ian Shalapata is the owner and publisher of Square Media Group. He covers politics, the police beat, community events, the arts, sports, and everything in between.
His imagery and freelance contributions have appeared in select publications and for organizations in Canada and the United States. Contact Ian with story ideas.